Jump to content
The Education Forum

John McAdams has passed on


Josh Cron
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 365
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

10 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

In light of the vitriol displayed in this thread, it is unsurprising to me that McAdams chose to go to a JFK conference incognito. If I understand it correctly, he revealed his true identity at the conclusion of the conference. Where's the harm?

W. Tracy--

Impersonation does not sit right. Harm? 

You can say "little" in the circumstance under question. 

But such an action decreases trust, and rents the social fabric. So, the next time people convene, there is some distrust. Are you who you say you are? Do you have a hidden agenda? Are you gaining my confidence under false pretense? 

I realize in modern America, no one seems to care anymore about the social fabric, or to have reasonable national pride, and feel they have civic duties. 

Maybe I am naive, I think one should be straight-forward. 

  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

You mean the Fred Litwin who is debunking your Garrison nonsense? You might want to read his blog, of course after you finish your despicable "Grave Dancing" rants. 

Fred Litwin did not debunk anything I ever wrote about New Orleans.

And I took 50 pages of analysis to show why.  I mean how stupid can one be to say that Garrison was looking for Bertrand/Shaw in 1963!!!  Before the WR was even published .

Somehow Parnell missed that.

Or how about this: Litwin never mentions that, after Kennedy was killed, Ferrie was trying to seek out and secure evidence linking him with Oswald in the summer of 1963.  He did this three times between 11/22 and 11/27!!  And the FBI knew of at least one of them.  Which would have given them the famous CAP photo. Which would have shown Ferrie lied under oath and was trying to obstruct justice.

Somehow, Parnell missed exposing that.

Third, Malcolm Blunt sent me recently the clean copy of the famous March 2, 1967 FBI memo in which it is finally revealed who the source is for telling the FBI that Shaw was Bertrand.  In advance of Garrison arresting him!  It was Aaron Kohn, who Litwin uses as a source to knock Garrison in his book. And was working for Shaw's lawyers.  In other words his own legal team knew Shaw was lying in public and under oath.

Did Tracy note that problem in his review? 

But see these kinds of serious evidence problems do not matter. Because the arguments of the Commission backers are not based on the totality of evidence.  They are based on what Litwin does: a selective reading of the evidence to back up a preconceived idea. 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

You would not believe the abuse and "dismissive responses" I have received since I have been working on my current Maurice Bishop project. I had an email exchange with a prominent CT researcher who I assumed was above such tactics. How wrong I was. It would make for interesting reading but I (of course) have a policy of not revealing private email exchanges. So, it works both ways assuming your characterization of your exchanges with McAdams is accurate.

W Tracy---

I am sorry there has been umbrage in your JFKA work. 

McAdams was dismissive of my inquiries, but not abusive, as I recall (been about 10 years). 

What puzzled me, was that I wrote the McAdams that Connally did a full 180 in his seat, to look back at JFK, after JFK raised his hands to his throat.  Around frames 260-280, you can nearly see the left profile Connally's face, from the perspective of the Z film. It is a concerned face, but not a face in agony. That does not look like a man who has been shot through the chest.  

McAdams said Connally did not really turn a 180. 

My other comments, to the effect that when it appeared Connally was shot and the head shot of JFK are too closely spaced to have been accomplished with a single-shot bolt action rifle were more or less ignored. 

But, for the record, it was not an abusive exchange. It just left me puzzled, and thinking that WC supporters have circled the wagons.

Well, that's my little story. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Third, Malcolm Blunt sent me recently the clean copy of the famous March 2, 1967 FBI memo in which it is finally revealed who the source is for telling the FBI that Shaw was Bertrand.  In advance of Garrison arresting him!  It was Aaron Kohn, who Litwin uses as a source to knock Garrison in his book. And was working for Shaw's lawyers.  In other words his own legal team knew Shaw was lying in public and under oath.

Litwin really does a number on the Kohn identification on his blog. 

He reproduces the memo. First, he suggests that Kohn got the notion that Shaw is Bertrand from the newspaper. However, his suggestion is intellectually disingenuous. He does not cite a footnote or specific example of anything in the newspaper that identified Shaw as Bertrand, and keep in mind that the time of the Kohn memo, Shaw had not been arrested yet. What Litwin does here is suggest that the newspapers in New Orleans were full of libel, innuendo and rumor without any citations to back that up. Then, as an example, Litwin weakly says that an article from the time period "mentioned Bertrand." But that isn't the same thing as the newspaper saying that Shaw is Bertrand. Yet Litwin wants us to think it is, and moreso, he wants us to believe that Kohn got this from the un-cited nonexistent newspaper articles that Litwin suggests were there. 

Then, he suggests that Kohn did not even believe what he told the FBI! Ths, in spite of what is written about Kohn in the FBI memo. Litwin ultimately concludes by saying "I can ensure you that he [Kohn] never believed that Shaw was Bertrand."

It takes a special kind of mental gymnastics examine an FBI document where Kohn identifies Shaw as Bertrand and to then conclude that "well, Kohn never believed that." Somehow, Litwin knows what Kohn is thinking. That's an amazing power for a writer to have, if only all of us could enter the thoughts of people merely by looking at documents. This is a problem that plagues Litwin's writing, as in his books he tries to tell us Jim Garrison's mindset, and what Garrison was thinking. Evidently Litwin has special mental powers.

Litwin also evidently knows, by some special process heretofore unseen to us, that Kohn was lying to the FBI about something which he did not know.

Isn't that special?

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-the-fbi-know-that-shaw-was-bertrand

Edited by Richard Booth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2021 at 1:10 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I hate to break it to you Calvin, but the CT community has already lost-they just don't know it. Go look on Wikipedia or read any of the mainstream books or websites or legitimate history textbooks. You will find the statement that LHO killed JFK alone.

Hate to break it to you Tracy but y'all gettin' yer ass kicked in pop culture.  The LN has never played well outside the newsrooms and universities.

 

Quote

The reason for this is not that there is a worldwide conspiracy to suppress the truth that includes the media and academia. It is because there exists no unified alternative explanation to the LN theory.

Of course there is! 

Those not blinded by confirmation bias recognize the fact the the bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to associate with his throat wound. 

JFK suffered a shallow wound in his back and an entrance wound in his throat which didn't exit.  No rounds were found during to the autopsy. 

The historical record indicates two possible explanations for wounds of entrance without exits or bullets:  either the rounds were removed prior to the autopsy, or JFK was hit with high tech rounds which dissolved in his body.

These are called leads.

Quote

 

You could put the top CT researchers in a room and they would agree on very little. The top researchers on both sides are dying at an alarming rate and when they are all gone so will the debate be.

Thank God!  All this phony debate obfuscates the fact that the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound.

Every legitimate cold case homicide investigation starts with a thorough examination of the physical evidence recovered with the body.

The JFKA has rarely received a legitimate investigation.

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2021 at 3:10 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

You could put the top CT researchers in a room and they would agree on very little.

 Well that's not true, is it? I mean, this has already happened. And while not everyone agreed with everyone else completely, they agreed on far more than they didn't.

But with as many holes in the historical narrative as there are, there are going to be disagreements on how to fill them.

"The top researchers on both sides are dying at an alarming rate and when they are all gone so will the debate be."

Obviously that's not true either; people still study the Lincoln assassination. And those folks don't have millions of documents that still need to be pored through...

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2021 at 2:10 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I hate to break it to you Calvin, but the CT community has already lost-they just don't know it. Go look on Wikipedia or read any of the mainstream books or websites or legitimate history textbooks. You will find the statement that LHO killed JFK alone. The reason for this is not that there is a worldwide conspiracy to suppress the truth that includes the media and academia. It is because there exists no unified alternative explanation to the LN theory. You could put the top CT researchers in a room and they would agree on very little.

This argument is fallacious.

If we approach theories about the JFK assassination from the perspective of philosophical logic and the philosophical characteristics of valid theories, one does not need to establish the validity of an alternative theory in order to invalidate an invalid theory.

Valid scientific/forensic theories, by definition, must explain all of the known facts without being invalidated by any facts.

Hence, it is much easier to invalidate any scientific/forensic theory than to validate one. 

All that is necessary to invalidate any theory is to demonstrate that it is contradicted by any known fact(s.)

There are many scientific and forensic facts which invalidate the Warren Commission's "Lone Nut" theory as a valid explanatory theory of the JFK assassination.  

Formulating and confirming a valid alternative theory of the JFK assassination is, in a sense, a separate issue.

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

This argument is fallacious.

If we approach theories about the JFK assassination from the perspective of philosophical logic and the philosophical characteristics of valid theories, one does not need to establish the validity of an alternative theory in order to invalidate an invalid theory.

Valid scientific/forensic theories, by definition, must explain all of the known facts without being invalidated by any facts.

Hence, it is much easier to invalidate any scientific/forensic theory than to validate one. 

All that is necessary to invalidate any theory is to demonstrate that it is contradicted by any known fact(s.)

There are many scientific and forensic facts which invalidate the Warren Commission's "Lone Nut" theory as a valid explanatory theory of the JFK assassination.  

Formulating and confirming a valid alternative theory of the JFK assassination is, in a sense, a separate issue.

The problem with Parnell is that he is an disinformation artist and loyalist of McAdams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

This argument is fallacious.

If we approach theories about the JFK assassination from the perspective of philosophical logic and the philosophical characteristics of valid theories, one does not need to establish the validity of an alternative theory in order to invalidate an invalid theory.

Valid scientific/forensic theories, by definition, must explain all of the known facts without being invalidated by any facts.

Hence, it is much easier to invalidate any scientific/forensic theory than to validate one. 

All that is necessary to invalidate any theory is to demonstrate that it is contradicted by any known fact(s.)

There are many scientific and forensic facts which invalidate the Warren Commission's "Lone Nut" theory as a valid explanatory theory of the JFK assassination.  

Formulating and confirming a valid alternative theory of the JFK assassination is, in a sense, a separate issue.

Factoids you crackpot buff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard that is unbelievable.

In the memo that I have there is no qualification to it. Kohn says that Shaw is identical to Bertrand.  Then there is a second source in the memo, who has a digraph code, who says the same thing. Then in the memo, the FBI has printed the name Bertrand under the first paragraph dealing with Shaw's arrest. 

In the real world, Litwin would be laughed out of court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...